Prop 8

All posts tagged Prop 8

When I heard the news about the Supreme Court ruling on DOMA and Prop 8, I was at work. A lot of people had a difficult time focusing on projects and we took frequent breaks to check the news. A few minutes after 10:00 am, I pulled out my phone to check Twitter and bam. There it was. From the man himself.

We took a moment to celebrate together. It was awesome to be surrounded by people who were happy about a monumental win for equality. I took to other social media to celebrate with friends back home, and I was quickly reminded that not everyone was happy about it. I mean, Jesus is crying about it after all.

And then Michelle Bachmann was all:

And the rest of the world was like, “Woa, what does that even mean?” Personally, I think she’s grabbing a pair of imaginary breasts. That’s the only thing that explains the positioning of her hands and that facial expression.

On the drive home from work, I listened to the news and experienced a lot of different emotions. Excitement about having full protection — on a state level and now on a national level — and gratitude to be surrounded by supportive people. I haven’t always had that privilege.

My mind shot back to Utah when listening to Rachel Maddow. She talked about a hypothetical couple, married in a state that recognizes same-sex couples, that relocates to Utah. What happens to them? What happens to their marriage? What do they do about their taxes? What if they have kids — do they continue to enjoy legal protections for their children?

These types of questions reminded us that we just took an “admittedly somewhat underwhelming but inarguably forward-facing move outside the Supreme Court Building“. And conservatives have it right: this *is* progress and there’s still more ground to gain before full equality is achieved. And we probably won’t stop at human equality: We’re coming for your pets!

After reading so many posts like this on social media, I had a sobering thoughts. I’ve had 30 years to build up tolerance for these types of statements. There was a time of life when I was even more sensitive than I am now, a time of life when I was afraid of people figuring out my secret. And even though I’m here now, there are people currently at the stage where I once was. The things shared with them during Sunday school lessons, fast and testimony meetings, fifth Sunday lessons, and shot around during casual conversations, will stick with them.

They’ve stuck with me. I remember my bishop sharing Boyd K. Packer’s pamphlet “To the One”. In the pamphlet, he shared a story about a missionary who was hit on by another missionary, and the missionary who was hit on punched the other. Or as he described to Packer, he “floored” him. And Packer responded, “Well, someone had to do it.” I was afraid. Adults have the capacity to think about the context — he might have been referring to a situation that involved a potential sexual assault. Kids, on the other hand, probably don’t think about context. I didn’t. All I thought was, “Person who is gay, like me, get’s punched. Church leader gives approval. My peers find out I’m gay. I get punch. They get kudos from the bishop.” That’s a terrifying place to be. Or to hear one of your leaders talk about how gay people should be drown in the ocean. And then go on church and scout trips with him near large bodies of water and wonder, “Would he…?” It causes you to wonder, constantly, what people really think and what they would really do if they knew.

I feel compelled to speak up for them because I remember how powerful and liberating it was when people spoke up for me.

And then I read headlines about violence — hate crimes — against gay people. It can be terrifying. Mathew Sheppard’s mom talked about how she wishes her son was still alive to see DOMA go down, and I’m reminded how far we’ve come.

We’ve come far enough that companies are realizing gay people have been part of an untapped market.

And of course, Google. They’re so gay, I think I might buy one of their tablets.

And movie stars refuse to marry until gay people can marry.

And then I go back to social media and I’m reminded again about how much more progress we need to make. Especially if this guy has a gay child:

At some point, I realize you become callous and desensitized. You don’t realize how much you close and harden up. Until you listen a song like this, and read a comment like this.

We’re making progress. Shame and fear of being gay are becoming less common. Like Macklemore said:

The letter also seems to strip gay couples of titles that would make them appear to be similar to straight couples. For example, notice the quotation marks in these sentences:

…Religious employers who provide special health benefits to married employees would be required by law to extend those benefits to same-sex “spouses”…

…So, for example, religious adoption services that place children exclusively with married couples would be required by law to place children with persons of the same sex who are civilly “married”…

Why do I care? They’re just words. Spouse. Marriage. They don’t mean much. Or do they? To me, this is reminiscent of the argument for separate but equal status: it segregates Dan and me from the rest of society–not only can we not get married, we aren’t allowed to refer to ourselves as being married. That’s something only straight, awesome people can do. When conversing with religious people, they sometimes deliberately avoid the use of words like marriage and spouse or husband and stammer for a word they feel is an appropriate middle ground (i.e., is separate but totally equal). It’s like when LDS Church president Gordon B. Hinckley referred to gays and lesbians as “so-called” gays and lesbians.

They’re just words, so I won’t be offended by them.

But other people seem to care about the words used to refer to them so maybe I should care. Remember when Robert Jefress called Mormonism a cult? And said Mormons aren’t Christian (i.e., don’t believe in Christ)? Facebook and Twitter were abuzz with Mormons repudiating his claims. Maybe Jefress was just stammering for words he feels are appropriate to separate his god-fearing religion from Mormonism. Here’s a refresher from Anderson Cooper.

Are “marriage” and “spouse” really just words? Linda Stay answered the question beautifully in this clip from 8: The Mormon Proposition. Her son married in California (before gay marriage was overturned), and she shared her thoughts about what that marriage did for her son’s relationship.

Words are powerful, especially the word marriage. Denying others the opportunity to use the word is also powerful and is not without its consequences.

Logan Utah — the city that has been my home for 25+ years — has problems with air quality in the winter. City Council Chairman Herm Olsen suggested a possible solution: close down drive-thrus on “red air days“.

I’m not writing this post to discuss the air problem; I’d like to discuss another problem: it seems churches, despite publicly denouncing any influence over their members on political matters, have an increasingly active role in politics. Let me illustrate with one example from the air problem in Logan. One commenter on the Herald Journal article (linked above) said:

“Its strange this issue isn’t seen more from a moral perspective. Where is the church on this? Maybe they have weighted in on the subject but I haven’t seen it yet.”

So where is the Church on this issue? Probably silent (as they should be).

This comment, among other related comments I’ve heard and read, suggest that although the LDS Church (and other churches) is politically neutral there is an underlying culture in which you cannot think or act politically unless you have the support of your church. Why? I’m not really sure, but I have ideas, and I think Proposition 8 is a good illustration of the situation. The documentary 8: The Mormon Propositionrelates the members of the LDS Church were invited to vote yes on Prop 8 and often invited by local leaders to make monetary contributions as based on their income and past tithes and offerings. It is also rumored that some members were disciplined if they did not contribute monetarily and if it was learned that they voted no on Prop 8.

Sometimes the Church comes out and makes statements, like it did with Prop 8, that members should support some political initiative. Sometimes the Church makes statements about its own stance on political issues. When members are invited to support an initiative, or when the Church makes public its stance on an issue, it seems members feel their salvation might be in jeopardy. And understandably so in situations in which someone in authority — someone who is putatively a judge on whether or not you are worthy to be with God in the next life — revokes “blessings” (e.g., temple recommend, membership in the Church) for not agreeing with church leaders on political issues.

Whatever the case, members of the LDS Church (and probably other churches as well) lean too heavily on the Church for political advice, and the LDS Church holds too much over the heads of its members if they disagree on political issues.

Growing up, I was taught that religious freedom and morality are on the decline. Until recently, I never questioned it. I’m beginning to wonder it this really is the case. Regarding morality, it was once moral to treat people with disabilities in ways that are now considered inhumane. Although I’m not appreciative of the paperwork I’ve had to complete to study the behavior of people with disabilities for my master’s thesis, I do appreciate the fact that Institutional Review Boards exist. Their existence communicates to me that morality is on an incline: people with disabilities enjoy more rights than they previously enjoyed. Steven Pinker goes into more depth:

Elder Quentin L. Cook of the LDS Church offers a potential rebuttal. I sense a conflict here. If the Bible teaches what Pink says it teaches (e.g., raid villages, kill the men and rape the women), then I’m not certain returning to Judeo-Christian moral principles is going to make the world more moral. But I may be wrong.

Regarding a history of declining religious freedoms, Elder Dallin H. Oaks of the LDS Church quoted Cardinal Francis George saying “threats to religious freedom in America…[are abortion and] the development of gay rights and the call for same-sex ‘marriage'”. He then cites cases that have nothing to do with freedom of speech and have everything to do with anti discrimination laws. In other words, no religion is being stopped from preaching that homosexuality is a sin but members of churches are being told that, when in public, you cannot discriminate against someone based on sexual orientation. Here are the cases he cites:

Photographer in New Mexico declined to photograph a same-sex commitment ceremony due to religious reasons.

United Methodist Church denied a lesbian couple access to their pavilion which was made available to the public (the church had been receiving tax breaks for making its property available to the public.

Candidate for master’s degree in counseling was dismissed from her program for failing to adhere to the field’s code of ethics regarding treatment of gays and lesbians. Specifically, she disagreed with the American Counseling Association’s prohibition against sexual orientation change efforts

Keith Olberman awarded Elder Oaks the “worst person award” for a similar talk given at BYU-I (link). Oaks had the opportunity to clarify points about comparing Mormons during Prop 8 to blacks during the civil rights movement with Fox13 Utah:

The question I raise is whether the LDS Church has a civil right to determine for everyone which relationships government should or should not recognize. In other words, is it really freedom of speech and freedom of religion to legislate (and therefore promote) their version of morality? In sum, I question the claims of Quentin L. Cook and Dallin H. Oaks that religious freedom and morality are on the decline.

I don’t always feel qualified to answer questions on marriage equality and other gay issues, especially when it comes to adoption by gay and lesbians couples: My personal experiences and knowledge are limited. I’ve compiled a series of videos that offer rebuttals to common arguments against gay marriage and other gay issues either through someone telling their story or a representation of true-to-life scenarios and facts. Share these videos on social media to answer questions you don’t feel qualified to answer; it makes a difference.

Zach Wahls of Iowa talks about being raised by two moms. He asks legislators in Iowa:

“You are voting for the first time in the history of our state to codify discrimination into our constitution… Will this vote affect my family? Will it affect yours?”

He further asserts “The sexual orientation of my parents has had zero affect on my character.”

This video from Australia reminds me of significant life events I’ve shared with Dan including our engagement.

This video is touching to me. People briefly mention aspects of the Constitution that uphold gay marriage and then say (something along the lines):

“We are the people of the United States of America. I’m your doctor. I’m your lawyer. I’m your pastor. I’m your neighbor. I’m your kids best friend.”

This video is also touching to me as I’ve felt numerous times that I need permission from all the people fighting against my marriage to be with Dan.

And here’s a clip from the most progressive show ever: The Golden Girls. If you want to know why men have nipples, this clip has an answer.

Wanda Sykes on gay marriage:

“If you don’t believe in same-sex marriage then don’t marry someone of the same sex… I think the biggest threat to marriage is divorce… Make marriage like the mafia: once you’re in, you’re in.”

Vulgarity warning: Wanda has been known to curse.

These videos are a little longer and more in depth. The man in the video talks about aspects of religious freedom that aren’t threatened by gay marriage. It is basically a rebuttal to Dallin H. Oaks: Oaks cites many of the same cases this guy discusses (e.g., the United Methodist Church case). These are the same cases and arguments distributed in LDS congregations during the time of Prop 8. LDS lawyer Morris Thurston offered his own rebuttal to these same arguments.

Here’s a final video from the CATO Institute which describes how marriage is a fundamental right.